Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 24.7.2024 of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
Grounds of appeal are as under: -
The Ld. CIT(A), in the facts and circumstances of case has erred in giving finding that the assessee did not own any share in the property (i.e. 1070 Sector-15B, Chandigarh) on the date 987-Chd-2024 Deep Kumar Pannu, Chandigarh 2 of transfer of another property i.e. land at MBM farm, Amritsar on which Capital Gain arose.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), in the facts and circumstances of case has erred in giving finding that the assessee is not liable for income from House Property i.e. H.No. 199, Tehsil Pura, at Amritsar, particularly in view of the facts that the said property was actually let out for rent to the tenant.
The Ld. CIT(A), in the facts and circumstances of case has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 7,14,03,777/- and Rs. 56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by denying deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and computing income from House Property (H.No. 199, Tehsil Pura, at Amritsar), let out by the assessee.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal
before the final hearing.
1. 3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the Assessee to the CIT(A) is as under: - During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold a property land at MBM Fans, which was a joint ownership property in favour of Alpha G Corporation Development Limited. Out of the total sales consideration of Rs 1,05,00,00,000/-, the assessee share is amounting to Rs. 17,50,00,000/-, out of which she has claimed a deduction of Rs. 987-Chd-2024 Deep Kumar Pannu, Chandigarh 3 7,14,03,777/- for the purchase of property at H. No 1159, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh and the deduction U/s 54F was disallowed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue and other related issues in his order which is as under:-
“7.1.1 The main issue under dispute is that whether the appellant has share in the property situated at 1070, Sector-15B, Chandigarh. The appellant has claimed that the aforesaid property was transferred to her two sons by her late husband Shri Diljit Singh Pannu vide 'Will' dated 10.10.2007. It is claimed that on 29.11.2019, based on the unregistered will dated 10.10.2007, the Estate Office, Chandigarh vide No.344058/RP/10095/G- II/2019 has transferred the ownership rights in name of her two sons. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the documents on record. Since, the Estate Office is a statutory authority empowered to record the transfer of ownership rights of properties in its jurisdiction, the finding of the Estate Office is crucial in the instant case, Keeping in view the affidavits of the witnesses to the unregistered will and the order of the Estate Office dated 29.11.2019, it is held that the appellant did not have ownership/part ownership in the property situated at 1070, Sector-15B, Chandigarh. Hence, denial of deduction u/s 54F to the appellant on the premise that she is already the owner of residential property 1070, Sector-15B, Chandigarh is incorrect. However, the AO at 987-Chd-2024 Deep Kumar Pannu, Chandigarh 4 the time of giving effect to the appeal order is directed to verify the original order of the Estate Office dated 29.11.2010. The ground of appeal raised is allowed. 7.
2. Ground Nos. 2 & 3: Without prejudice to ground No. 1, vide the said grounds of appeal the contention of the appellant is that to the AO has erred in ignoring the fact that the property 1070, Sector-15B, Chandigarh is not the exclusive residential property as the said property also includes a commercial shop as accepted by the AO. The appellant has further alleged that the AO is wrong in disallowing deduction under section 54F by ignoring the fact that fractional ownership right in one residential property cannot be equated to ownership of one residential house for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 7.2.1 Since ground No.1 has been allowed in favour of the appellant on merits, the alternate grounds raised by the appellant have become redundant and are therefore not required to be adjudicated upon. 7.3 Ground No. 4: Vide the said ground of appeal the contention of the appellant is that the AO has erred in making addition of Rs.56,000/- on account of deemed rental income from the property situated at Amritsar by ignoring the fact that the appellant did not receive any actual rent from the property and quantum of estimated market rent was on higher side. 7.3.1 The appellant has 30% share in the property situated at H. No. 199, Tehsilpura, Amritsar. Since the appellant has not received any rental income from the said property and in 987-Chd-2024 Deep Kumar Pannu, Chandigarh 5 view of the discussion in para 7.1 above wherein it has been held that the appellant does not have a share in property 1070, Sector-15B, Chandigarh, the notional rental income from the property situated at Amritsar is not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs.56,000/- as notional rental income is deleted. The ground of appeal raised is allowed.”
5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
6. We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of ownership of the property situated at 1070, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh is very clear and categorical. The Ld. CIT(A) has clearly mentioned that the Estate office, Chandigarh vide No.344058/RP/10095/G- II/2019 has transferred ownership rights in the name of two sons of the Assessee. He has also given his findings that since the Estate officer is statutory authority empowered to record the ownership rights of properties in its jurisdiction; therefore, findings of the Estate officer are crucial in this case. On the basis of information given by the Estate officer, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the Assessee on this issue.
987-Chd-2024 Deep Kumar Pannu, Chandigarh 6 7. During proceedings before us, the Revenue could not rebut the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, therefore, in our view, there is no need for any interference in the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
As regards findings given on other issues like income from house property from H. No. 199, Tehsil pura at Amritsar and another addition of Rs. 56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by denying deduction u/s 54F of the Act, we find that on all such issues, findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) are very clear and categorical and the Revenue could not rebut such findings during the proceedings before us. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no need to interfere in the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on such issues. Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal on these issues is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 07.08.2025.